Delete a webhook

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=true, and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a concrete behavioral fact the annotations do not — a 100 requests / 10 seconds per-shop rate limit with a link to the guide — but says nothing about irreversibility, permissions, or what happens when the id is unknown.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

It is short and free of padding, but the only substantive sentence is a boilerplate rate-limit notice; the one-line purpose is a pure duplication of the title, so the second line earns nothing and the total word count is not the issue — the allocation is.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With annotations covering destructiveness and non-idempotency and the schema fully documented, the description is barely adequate: for a destructive, non-idempotent operation it should at least state that the deletion is permanent and whether the target must exist. The rate-limit note is the only real addition.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, including the account label caveat, the confirm guard, and the webhook_configuration_id constraints, so the schema carries the parameter burden. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, which is the baseline 3.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

"Delete a webhook" names a specific verb and resource, so the basic purpose is unambiguous. However, it is a verbatim restatement of the tool title with nothing added — no scope, no target qualifier, and no differentiation from the sibling lifecycle tools update_webhook, create_webhook, get_webhook, and list_webhooks.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description offers no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives. The presence of siblings like update_webhook (which can presumably disable a webhook) makes this omission meaningful.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.